Letter of the Week – WNDhttp://www.wnd.com
A Free Press For A Free People Since 1997Sat, 10 Dec 2016 02:41:24 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6Find another place for May Day prayerhttp://www.wnd.com/2010/04/138257/
Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=138257Many Christians recognize that America is already undergoing chastisement and stands in danger of severe judgement for its sins. Never has there been a nation as blessed as ours that has turned its back on God so suddenly and so contemptuously thumbed its nose at His Commandments. Some concerned Christians further recognize that Americans need to cry out in repentance and contrition for God’s forgiveness, revival and healing. On May 1, they propose to do this – at the Lincoln Memorial, of all places.

What kind of man was Lincoln for Christians to honor with their prayer day? From a standpoint of faith, Mr Lincoln was a notorious infidel who spent most of his life scoffing at the gospel message and mocking God’s ministers. He held Christian beliefs in contempt, denying the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the virgin birth, inspiration of Scripture, miracles, etc. He never joined a church or made a profession of faith; he participated in seances in the White House, for heaven’s sake, and then laughed about that. He even mocked his own prayer proclamation when chided by his long-time acquaintance Judge James N. Nelson, who noted Lincoln’s Thanksgiving messages were contrary to his known convictions on the subject. Lincoln responded: “Oh! This is some of Seward’s nonsense, and it pleases the fools!”

From a standpoint of personal morality, Lincoln had a filthy vocabulary, as shown by his habit of telling profane, vulgar jokes to amuse his cronies and other men. He also had a callous disregard for suffering. In March 1865, at City Point, Va., Lincoln met with Grant and Sherman; he asked to hear stories about how Sherman’s “bummers” vandalized churches and raped, pillaged and murdered unarmed civilians in Georgia and South Carolina. Lincoln guffawed when he heard these stories. This disturbing scene was recorded in Sherman’s memoirs and by U.S. Adm. David Porter who was an eyewitness to the meeting. These events and others are extensively documented in history, but here is a good synopsis and another here.

From a standpoint of political policy and statesmanship, Lincoln provoked and prosecuted an immoral and unconstitutional war that killed 600,000 Americans, including one-fourth of young men in the South, and then blamed it on God in his second Inaugural Address. He was an unbeliever who destroyed limited constitutional governments in America. Of course, secular hagiography has turned Lincoln into the demi-god of the all-powerful government that dictates our lives, by power of the sword, down to what prayers, if any, may be uttered at a high-school commencement or football game. Nearly every popular impression of Lincoln people imbibe from their public-school education is creepy, manufactured propaganda culled to make him the benign “savior of the union.”

Are there no places of worship in the capital city where Christians can assemble to pray in the House of the Lord on May 1? Do you think God is going to honor prayers offered up from the temple of Baal with its statue of Dagon perched in its midst? Please think again, brethren. You make a mockery of prayer and expose yourself and the church to ridicule by associating what should be a solemn, holy occasion with Lincoln’s name. To host a prayer event to plea for mercy and forgiveness from Almighty God on the steps of a pagan temple dedicated to a despotic infidel is an insult to Southerners and blasphemous nonsense to discerning Christians.

Thank you for showing us how to stand up for truth and how a little ridicule cannot really harm us at all.

Our common struggle is not about party or politics, nor is it about socialism or democracy. It is about power and corruption.

Why this is not about Democrats vs. Republicans

Republicans tend to see our current decline in terms of “creeping socialism.” Similarly, Democrats tend to (correctly) identify our decline in terms of “corporatism” or “fascism.” Both sides are right. How can this be? It’s easier to see if we reframe the debate.

In socialism, a small number of individuals have total control over the distribution of wealth. Criminals target the bureaucrats with bribes, threats and extortion to direct the wealth into their own coffers.

When our federal legislators or bureaucrats have control over great wealth, criminals still use bribery and extortion. The only difference is the “face” they present to the public. In socialist systems, they can remain faceless. In our republic, they must be seen in public, so they wear the mask of a foundations, businesses or charitable entities.

Why this is not about socialism vs. democracy

Our founders regarded both socialism and democracy as inherently tyrannical systems, destined to end in political and economic slavery. They formed a new style of government in our Constitution. Our government balances power between member states and the citizens. Only the citizens can raise taxes and spend money. Member states must approve of any taxation or spending before those proposals can become law. In our system, the wishes of the majority cannot be used to deprive any citizen of his right to life, liberty and property.

The real problem is the concentration of power

Put simply, our current problem is the concentration of power. Power is money, and money is power. An overly powerful federal government is too easily corrupted. Our current situation is all the proof we should require.

Our founders understood this problem and gave us a clear solution in the Constitution. Our Constitution severely limits the powers of the federal government. They wanted to prevent the accumulation of great power in a government far removed from the people’s ability to control it.

Fred Bunn

]]>Don't tread on me, Census Bureauhttp://www.wnd.com/2010/03/129105/
Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=129105The New World Order includes the Obama Census Bureau with its many community organizers who twist arms and violate constitutional rights in a desire to acquire information – for our benefit, of course.

I was one of the honored few to receive a package from the American Community Survey that requested very detailed information about my life. The letter was addressed to the “Resident” at my address. Since that is not my legal name, I tossed the package in to the garbage.

A few weeks later, another request to “Resident” arrived, which asked me to fill the form out. The letter and its contents found its way to the trash bin.

Shortly afterwards, the phone calls began. Initially there were cordial request, which were then followed by a “grandmotherly” type woman who gently described how necessary the information was for the government. They wanted to know what time we left for work and what route we used. She explained that if there were an emergency, the rescue workers would need to know where we were and how we got there. We told her it was none of her business.

When these approaches failed to impress, a government worker came to my door. I told him that I would tell him the number of people in my home, their sex and their age, but I would tell him nothing more. He threatened to have me taken to federal court. He cited several U.S. Codes. I explained to him the legal parameters that were set by the U.S. Constitution that trumped the codes he mentioned. Then I asked him to leave my property.

When the census worker merely retreated to his car across the street and sat there, I immediately called the local police and had him escorted out of my neighborhood.

A few days later we received a call from the same gentleman who explained his supervisor and he had decided they could do a “Jane Doe” interview with me. All they needed were the names of the residents, the ages and our sex listing.

While the president and his minions think they can trample the U.S. Constitution and assume powers given to Congress, we need to use the constitutional law as our shield from a growing abusive power known as the Obamanation. If I’m going to be counted, I want to be known as one of the defenders of freedom, not a pawn of oppression. Power is derived from the people unless we submit to tyranny. Like my ancestors, I say, “Don’t tread on me.”

Jeff Rayno

]]>The state playing make-believehttp://www.wnd.com/2010/02/126223/
Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=126223Markets never fail. They cannot fail. Free markets are perfect representations of reality. Indeed, they are reality itself. Markets may not effect your agenda or advance your goals, but they do NOT fail. Ever. It is childish to say that they do fail when they don’t deliver what you want. To say that the free market fails is to say that reality fails. Or to say that truth fails – which makes absolutely no sense. Reality simply is.

Government interference in the free interactions of people, i.e., the market, is always an attempt to cheat reality. Insane and childish. It’s a game of let’s pretend. Let’s pretend that everybody has earned a house. Let’s pretend that everybody is equally credit worthy. Let’s take money from some people and give it to others so they can pretend that they are prosperous. Let’s mandate minimum wages so that people can pretend that they are contributing more than they are, thereby keeping them down by stealing their incentive to actually improve themselves and to be more productive. The corporate bailouts, more let’s pretend. Let’s give them billion-dollar handouts so that we can all pretend that everything is OK.

But it can’t be done. You cannot cheat reality. You can only play make-believe and make matters worse. It sometimes seems that the make-believe solves problems, but it just covers over them and makes things worse down the road.

It can often seem that government interference helps matters, but it only makes things worse. This is because productive people work harder and smarter to compensate for the burden place on the economy by the distortions caused by the childish let’s-pretend effect of political interference. The burden is still there. It’s just people are pushing up more than government is pushing down. The ever-increasing destruction of government’s let’s-pretend policies is cumulative, and reality will win out. Eventually, the economy of government policy make-believe will come crashing down. It is not free markets that crash, because reality can not crash. It is the distortion and disruption created by government coercion that comes crashing down.

The only solution is not more make-believe, but the rejection of make-believe and the acceptance of reality. The solution is free cooperation and not top-down force. People want to work, create, produce. They are looking to support themselves and their families. To improve their lot and secure their future they earn, spend, save and invest. Research, develop, design and invent. Start and build businesses. The result being economic growth and expansion.

There are two forces at work on the economy: people pushing up, and government force pushing down. The less government distorts reality with its coercive make-believe, the more prosperity. The choice is simple. Government interference, an attempt to thwart reality, is childishness writ large and only creates problems. It is the voluntary cooperation of free people that propels growth and prosperity.

Freedom will not produce a perfect world. Just the best possible world.

J. Frank Jad

]]>The end justifies the meanshttp://www.wnd.com/2010/02/124176/
Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=124176This past year should be a real eye-opener for Americans about the complete lack of any ethics on the left of the political spectrum. Consider the following:

The Democratic Party put forth, endorsed, and was able to get elected an individual who has no public traceability to his origins. What’s more, they’ve managed to frame the argument such that anyone who dares to question this is branded a lunatic fringe birther. Even many prominent conservatives are afraid to even touch the issue. With Obama as radical as leftists come, he was the dream come true for the base of the Democratic Party, and the goal of getting him elected was the end that justified the means.

Al Franken managed to manufacture enough votes to steal the Minnesota senatorial election from Norm Coleman. The goal of getting the 60th Senate seat was the end that justified the means. “Do whatever it takes” was the mantra, and no amount of voter fraud was too great to achieve this.

Democrats have, with the aid of race-baiting collaborators like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and other self-described “civil rights leaders,” created a political plantation that has succeeded in keeping the black community feeling like helpless victims whose only path to success is through their white, liberal slave masters who dole out government handouts in exchange for votes. With a steady diet of victimology and intentionally baseless charges of racism against conservatives, it’s become a travesty that has resulted in a skyrocketing out-of-wedlock birth rate and an abortion rate that far exceeds their proportion of the population. On top of that, these same white liberals fiercely defend keeping inner-city black kids in their failing schools rather than allowing school vouchers for these kids to attain a decent education. Only in the latte-sipping world of San Francisco liberals could one believe that the Democratic Party is the best choice for blacks. Keeping blacks as a reliable Democratic voting block is the end that justifies the means.

Obama and congressional Democrats are using every parliamentary trick in the book to ramrod this health-care “reform” bill into law when the overwhelming evidence indicates the American people are opposed to it. Forcing the entire American population into government dependence (thereby assuring future Democratic political dominance in the decades to come) has been the goal of liberal Democrats for decades. This is the end that justified the means.

Radical liberals (masquerading as scientists) obsessed with social control have been found to be manipulating climate data in an effort to keep global warming appearing to be a real problem. Everything from manufactured and altered temperature data to deliberately falsified assessments of melting glaciers, they bastardized the integrity of science and wasted untold billions of dollars manufacturing a crisis for the sole purpose of forcing the public to hand over it’s liberties to “save the planet.” This is the end that justified the means.

Now we find that amnesty is back on the table. While George Bush’s amnesty goal was for economic purposes, the liberal Democrats are (and have been) looking to add Hispanics to their plantation they have blacks on. As another prospective dependency class, they’re looking to flip the amnesty switch to activate millions of sure-fire Democratic voters. With white independents now running away from the same Obama they elected, the Democrats need to replenish their base. This is the end that justifies the means.

Clearly this list can go on and on. Nevertheless, the Democrats have been practicing such slash-and-burn politics for years. Whether it’s the Constitution, the quality of life of their constituents, the rule of law – nothing is beyond trashing in order for them to attain and retain political power. The only silver lining is that it appears that the previously apathetic Americans who have become accustomed to bending over and grabbing their ankles have awakened to this and may be putting an end to it very soon.

Mike Michaelian

]]>How to revive the energy industryhttp://www.wnd.com/2010/01/122037/
Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=122037At the moment America is in bad shape, although much of it is psychosomatic, a self-fulfilling prophecy brought on by the gloom-and-doom boys in D.C. Obama has wasted trillions of dollars we don’t have on stimulus packages that haven’t done a darn thing. He has cut off the possibility of drilling for oil off our own shores but has “given” (paid back) his wealthy socialist buddy George Soros with a $2 billion dollar grant (our tax dollars) to Soros’ Brazilian oil company so they can drill for oil of the coast of Brazil.

Whats wrong with this picture? He’s using our money to create new jobs in somebody else’s country and make his rich buddy even richer.

Everyone over 45 remembers the spectacle of the Apollo mission to the moon and the calling of a nation to do something great. Well, it’s time for that to happen again – but this time it needs to be a call to sever our dependence on foreign oil and eventually on oil altogether. Below is a 30,000-foot view of an outline showing how to do just that.

I call this the move toward a hydrogen-based economy – a 10-year plan to get us there.

Step 1: Call for a national contest, open only to American-based companies and private American citizens to develop an infrastructure based upon energy derived from hydrogen fuel cells.

A large prize for developing this infrastructure in the range of $50 million could be arranged to be given to the winner.

The winner would be selected from a group composed of private citizens. The group would contain people from the fields of engineering, quality, business professionals, ordinary consumers, etc. These people would be responsible for selecting the winning design or designs.

Step 2: Once a design or designs are chosen, it would be bid on by various companies, groups, etc. to refine and build the infrastructure.

While all of this is going on, open up American oil fields for drilling and use the revenue (additional tax) to pay for the building of the new infrastructure.

This will include building new oil refineries that have the capability of being re-tooled into producing the hydrogen or hydrogen matrix to be used in the fuel cells.

Step 3: Phase in the hydrogen infrastructure over a 10-year period, retooling existing gas station to handle refueling with hydrogen.

The could be several applications to this contest:

Hydrogen fuel cells for ground transport

Hydrogen fuel cells for power production on large (commercial power plants) and small scale (personal home power)

Military applications

Aircraft applications

This would create a whole new sector of industry to produce the hydrogen fuel cells, build the infrastructures, maintain the infrastructures, maintain vehicles and power systems. It would be open to a free-market approach to instill competition with the best quality and lowest cost.

This is how you “solve” America’s issues with the economy and energy independence. We could then export this technology to the rest of the world. It will put our nation back on top. It also shuts up the tree huggers, etc.

Obama’s way is to force us to use less energy by taxing us using the shell game of cap-and-trade. It’s just another way for the same old cronies like Al Gore, Obama and his rich socialist subversive friends in Congress to get richer and gain more control over the rest of us that bust our backs every day paying ever higher taxes.

Please consider this proposal as a way of putting America back on top!

Joseph Miller III

]]>Michael Steele has to gohttp://www.wnd.com/2010/01/121316/
Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=121316Over the past few years, I’ve become increasingly upset at the way our Republican elected officials, and even our candidates, have portrayed themselves on Sunday shows and in other media appearances. Their responses to real issues were without passion and their statements continuously rang hollow. The GOP has always been right on the issues. We cut taxes on all income levels, have saved millions of jobs, sounded the alarm on the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage crisis Democrats chose to ignore and, most of all, offered solutions on issues of national security as Democrats sat and twiddled their thumbs.

The problem was that none of this was being shown on TV. Media bias was largely to blame, but in equal proportion, so were the lackadaisical responses coming from our side. With that in mind, I had high hopes for Chairman Michael Steele when he was first elected. Watching the debate between the candidates for party chairman, Steele seemed alive, energetic and vivacious.

In the proceeding months, it was clear that we had a problem on our hands. The chairman of our party should not be someone who agrees with the radical leftist agenda of Barack Obama almost one-third of the time. The public face of our party should not be someone who lacks the wherewithal to identify, and then to staunchly denounce, the policies and agenda items that have increasingly become the hallmark of the radical left.

As time went on, Michael Steele increasingly showed himself to be clueless on policy, devoid of ideas and bereft of a competitive political philosophy – this at a time when Americans are clamoring for one. Most of all, his organizational skills, of primary importance to the position the party chairman is elected to fill, were shown to be all but nonexistent. As I watched on with dismay, I hoped against hope that Steele would grow into the job. Regrettably, this was not to be the case.

None of the above listed faults can come close to his latest misstep, that of downplaying our party’s standing and of deflating our morale with his outrageous prognostications on the 2010 race. That his comments were made in the very same week that the distressingly liberal Los Angeles Times admitted that the GOP is poised to regain control of the US House and possibly the Senate is troubling beyond words.

In the same interview, Chairman Steele also went to great lengths to attack every Republican within a 500-mile radius of Washington, D.C. These amateurish tactics would be sad and counterproductive if they were the statements of a 20-year-old political activist. When the chairman of a party makes them, they’re shameful beyond words. Chairman Steele, we have Democrats who are perfectly capable of attacking every single Republican while giving all but a free pass to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. They don’t need your help.

We are the Party of Everyday Americans, not of sophomoric political hacks. If Michael Steele is auditioning for a column of his own at the New York Times or for a position at some obscenely comical think tank, then he should not be using party resources or a position within our party to achieve those ignoble goals. Chairman Steele’s attack on our party’s morale is an affront to the American people – those who seek a clear and viable alternative to the insanity that is the hallmark of this administration, an administration Steele has coddled when his job was to oppose it.

For this reason above all else, I call upon Chairman Steele to end his hapless and lackluster reign at the helm of the Republican Party. I also call upon all Republican candidates to demand his resignation with equal resolve and certitude.

I don’t make this call lightly. Upon Michael Steele’s election as party chairman, I wrote a column praising his leadership style. As a columnist, I owe it to readers to clear that up. As a candidate, I stand to be affected by what passes for leadership under this chairman. Most importantly, as an American, I cannot stomach the ineptitude of a chairman whose words can aversely affect the fundraising efforts of the only party that stands in the way of radical socialism.

The Republican Party is the party of Ronald Reagan and of so many others who seek to preserve the American Way and the moral values upon which our great nation was founded and upon which its future success relies. The farce that has passed for leadership under this chairman must come to an end for our party to regain its standing as the true and rightful voice of the American people.

Yomin Postelnik

Candidate for Florida House District 91

]]>Bring in the dogs!http://www.wnd.com/2010/01/120630/
Fri, 01 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=120630The recent Christmas “almost bombing” of Northwest Flight 253 was a little too “close to home” for me. I’m an Iraq-based contractor who usually flies the same exact route at the holidays and, like thousands of others, find myself shaking my head at the insanity of the situation.

All of the “security theater,” all of the “no-fly lists,” the “expensive technological arrays and X-rays” … the very fact that the terrorist in question, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had been “dimed out” by his own father as a radicalized potential “problem” and was still allowed to get onboard a West-bound international flight without any suspicion or extra oversight. Thankfully, he was incompetent and the alert passengers onboard prevented him from accomplishing his demonic mission.

I’d say it’s time to get back to basics. Real basic basics. In this, I mean man’s best friend, the faithful and highly effective K-9. In the James Cameron “Terminator” series, the surviving humans utilize dogs, (which have upwards of 220 million olfactory sense organs, compared to a paltry human 4 million) to “sniff out” infiltration/Terminator units and raise the alarm. When I cross into customs in the U.S., I’m usually greeted by a beagle puppy who crawls all over my bags to insure I’m not bringing any contraband food/veggies/what have you from my foreign adventures. He’s a cute lil cuss and very eager and dedicated to do his job, as it’s what he literally lives for.

Dogs in Iraq have been highly successful in stopping and finding IEDs and suicide bombers for the past six years. In one case I personally witnessed, the dogs could smell the approaching Vehicle Borne Explosive Device almost 400 meters away from the checkpoint (they were going crazy, even the “off duty” dogs in the cages), and because of this, said Mad Bomber detonated far too early to actually inflict any damage on the Coalition forces manning the checkpoint. They were “locked and loaded,” aiming at the car because the dogs had singled out the lone car and its payload of death. Needless to say, I brought back some extra hamburgers from the chow hall to spoil them afterwards, which is all the reward they could ever want.

Why spend millions and millions of dollars on questionable, unproven technology when we have proven that a dog can, and will (eagerly if the treat is the prize), smell out PET-N, RDX or C-4 for a mere fraction of the cost? We have dogs that are routinely “retired” from Iraq duty and are farmed out to loving families back in the states, and some of these “Force Protection Dogs” are still in the prime of their lives. Why? Not to mention employing the handlers, many of whom who spent at least one if not multiple tours in the war zone helping to sniff out exactly these sort of “bad guys.”

The current state of the TSA is made up of people who have never been in “the real war” and couldn’t tell a “tweaker,” as we call them, from a nervous tourist. Better you have pros who have had boots-on-the-ground experience and a pooch who’s only devotion in life is to find the “target,” as it means he gets a belly rub and a cookie. Experience counts, and the handlers and dogs I’ve seen in action are the best deterrent you could want.

Get rid of the “Buck Rogers Gee-Whiz Hi-Tech Multi-Zillion-Dollar” toys. Station a pair of explosive scent-trained dogs and experienced handlers at the gates. The dogs can be rotated when they get tired, and the cost for six pairs of handlers, kibble and the rest per airport is far cheaper than one Buck Rogers toy that may or, in this case, may NOT actually work. If the cultural aspects of a K-9 offend the Muslim sensitivities, well, I hate to be un-PC about it, but the current Muslim propensity for trying to blow up aircraft offends the hell out of me, and they should just adjust to it. Just like I had to adjust when it came to removing my shoes, laptop, belt and almost everything else when I fly, they need to get over it.

William “Big Country” Coughlin

]]>How to get Congress to listenhttp://www.wnd.com/2009/11/116549/
Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=116549In the WND article “Congress members jumping onto ‘pink slips’ campaign,” Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., is quoted as saying, “The pink slip campaign serves as a good reminder of the unavoidable fact that every member of Congress answers to their constituents and that they ignore their voices at their own peril.”

In fact, that’s not true. The idea that members of Congress answer to their constituents is a myth in modern America.

Most congressmen, in fact most politicians, are lawyers. Lawyers are hired guns – they represent whoever pays them. Lawyers are taught to represent their clients fully, regardless of their own opinions.

So, who’s paying the politicians? Their campaign contributors! And the politicians are faithfully representing their contributors!

So, what can we do about it? Will pink slips really work?

Well, a little bit – at least enough to get them to talk more about representing their constituents, but at the risk of distancing their contributors.

So, what’s the answer?

How about changing the ones who hire them? How about changing their contributors? Since they represent whoever pays them, wouldn’t that work?

Yes! But how can we do that when most of us don’t have enough money to make any politician take notice?

But no one, to my knowledge, has ever mentioned the only kind of reform that would encourage politicians to really represent their constituents. Why nobody’s thought of it before I don’t know. But maybe someone has, and the politicians are so against it, it never gets any air time.

Here it is:

Require that ALL campaign contributions come ONLY from voters who are registered to vote in a precinct that will have the race that pertains to that campaign on its ballot.

All campaign contributions, including “hard money,” “soft money,” goods and services that are contributed in any way to any campaign, must come from – guess who? – the constituents! Otherwise, the constituents won’t be represented!

“All campaign contributions” would also apply to ballot measures. Let the people who live in an area determine their own laws without outside special interests trying to persuade them.

Having “the race that pertains to that campaign” on the ballot would allow contributions to write-in candidates.

Only people should contribute to a campaign. No companies, unions or “political action committees” should ever be allowed to contribute to any campaign! The organization’s leadership can’t prove that everyone who’s contributed to the organization approves of the campaign to which the organization’s leadership wants to contribute. (I’m sure you can think of current news articles that indicate that.)

Those who are serious enough about a campaign to want to contribute to it should at least be serious enough to register to vote! If they’ve lost the right to vote (or never had it in the first place), they have no business trying to influence any election!

Contributors should contribute to their own candidates. Even if they are registered to vote, they shouldn’t be able to influence candidates running for offices that aren’t supposed to represent the contributors.

This would eliminate some senators who get most of their campaign contributions from out of state. I’ve even heard of politicians getting contributions from China of all places! Do we really want China deciding how our country is run?

Now, I realize that changing campaign-finance law in any significant way is really tough. The politicians won’t vote for it because this change would remove major sources of contributions from many of them. In fact, if this change had been enacted before the 2008 elections, most of the currently elected officials wouldn’t have even been on the ballot.

To make a change like this, we’ll probably have to circulate a petition to put an initiative measure on the ballot (or however it’s done in your state).

Jeffrey Moore

]]>The kinship of liberalism and radical Islamhttp://www.wnd.com/2009/11/115844/
Fri, 13 Nov 2009 00:00:00 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=115844For the last several years, something has been eating at me. Since 9/11, the interest in Islam has surged. I have noticed something most conservatives have also noticed and watched with chagrin. It has to do with the attitude of the mainstream media and other liberals toward Islam. Anyone with common sense and a touch of objectivity can see the obvious bias of the old established print and broadcast media outlets in this country. They are agenda-driven. They have consistently displayed animosity against Christianity and the God of the Bible, while covering for and promoting their new darling religion, Islam. I kept asking why, believing the answer was more than it being just another attack against Christianity. Though I may not have the full story yet, the reason has finally hit me: blood is thicker than water. Liberalism and radical Islam are related. Notice the following similar characteristics. (Note: Though the emphasis is on radical Islam, the same comparisons can be made with Islam, to a lesser degree.)

Both are intolerant. Only the most biased or blind would object to the statement that Islam is intolerant. Look in the countries where Islam rules. Dissenting religious views are not allowed. In America, there is an organization called the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR. Why is there no Council on Arab-Christian Relations (CACR) in Arab Muslim countries? This type organization is about as likely to materialize as the First Baptist Church of Mecca. Notice also the intolerance of liberalism. While trying to hide under an invisible cloak of tolerance, liberals are the most intolerant ideologues to be found. Numerous are the accounts of conservatives on university campuses who have been shouted down and harassed by the “tolerant” liberals.

Both are exclusive. In arrogance, radical Islam purports to be the exclusive repository of spiritual truth. This philosophy results in a militant attitude that conquers by the sword or bomb. Liberalism, especially as evidenced in the media, is arrogantly exclusive. Before losing their stronghold on “reporting” the news, liberal news people have consistently displayed their disdain for all who disagree, flagrantly pushing their agenda. Thankfully, now some people have stopped being good little drones, have begun to think for themselves and have armed themselves with information, forming intelligent opinions.

Both hate America, Israel and Christianity. Radical Islam hates America and Israel and all they stand for. Liberty and Christianity have both made America a target to those who would enslave us in a religious/political system that would produce hate and ignorance as it has in many countries. Liberalism hates America, Israel and Christianity with a passion. Liberalism would try and destroy that which gives it the freedom to exist. For more info, read “Why The Left Hates America” by Daniel J. Flynn.

Both play the race card. Radical Muslims, supported by CAIR, have opposed profiling and cried “racism,” yet profiling is just good common sense. Though not all Muslims are terrorists, virtually all terrorists have been Muslims. Muslim victimization has been the cry of the radicals. Liberalism is also an expert at dealing the race card. When blacks are arrested, liberals cry foul and blame everything on oppression and racism. The liberals began this mantra, but it has been taken up by self-appointed black leaders who care more about enriching themselves than liberating and empowering their own people.

Both denigrate women. Radical Islam is known for its lowly view of women. Polygamy is allowed, which denigrates the role of the woman as wife. Mutilations occur, and women are abused physically and emotionally in the marital relationship. Liberalism is hypocritical concerning the treatment of women. If liberals were really concerned about women, they would cry against abortion because of the emotional anguish that naturally follows when any mother has her own child killed. Liberals are strangely silent when women are immorally victimized by high-profile liberals such as Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Even the feminists are silent, proving they don’t really care about the treatment of women. Liberals also promote “free speech” through pornography, which is demeaning and humiliating to women.

Both are preoccupied with sex. Polygamy is not unknown in radical Islam. There is also the promise of 72 virgins for one who will die in jihad. Only the most naive would believe the polygamist would maintain a platonic relationship with multiple wives. And who believes the 72 virgins in paradise are provided just for decoration? Though Islam teaches modesty among women, sex is still an emphasis. For the liberal, sex has long been a priority. Liberals believe in free sexual expression and encourage sexual experimentation among schoolchildren. Liberals promote the perversion and abomination of homosexuality, showing disdain for morality and traditional family values.

So the pieces of the puzzle finally fit. Blood is definitely thicker than water. Liberals and radical Muslims are siblings. They have fallen from the same tree of hatred, intolerance, arrogance and bigotry, and the apple never falls far from the tree.